VIJAY KUMAR PATANGAY Vs. KEDARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of this revision petition arises under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). The unsuccessful landlord is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the tenant in a non-residential premises, admittedly owned by the petitioner. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the ownership of the petition schedule premises. There is also no dispute with regard to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed R.C. No. 604 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Sec. 10(3)(b) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, for the eviction of the respondent/tenant from the premises consisting of ground floor Mulgi and first floor portion bearing Municipal No. 21-2-7, situated at Patharghatti, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises'). The eviction of the respondent/tenant herein is sought mainly on the ground that the premises is required for the own business purposes of the petitioner and he is under the bonafide need of the premises. It is also the case of the petitioner/landlord that the respondent/tenant is using the first floor of the premises for his residence after converting it into kitchen and living room. According to the petitioner/landlord the respondent/tenant has converted the use of the premises without any permission whatsoever from that of non-residential of residential. Eviction is sought on both the grounds.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent/tenant that the premises was obtained for non-residential and residential purposes. Ground floor is obtained for using a cloth shop and upstair for residential purposes right from the inception of the tenancy. The allegation made in the eviction petition that the entire premises has been let out for non-residential purpose for running the cloth business by the respondent/tenant is denied. The tenancy is for the composite lease of residential and non-residential purposes, is the case put forth by the respondent/tenant. It is also the case of the respondent/tenant that the rental agreement dated 1.11.1982 is without stipulation of any period. He is expected to continue in the premises by enhancing the rent every three years at 20% on the existing rent. The privity of the tenancy between the parties does not entitle the petitioner/landlord to file eviction petition. It is also the case of the respondent/tenant that the petitioner/landlord is already doing business in agricultural implements and, therefore, he cannot claim the possession of the premises for doing cloth business.